So you’re saying the librul media is pro-gun control?
Anyway, who gives a fuck except gun nuts about whether it was auto or semi-auto? So he killed a few less than he would have otherwise. He stilled killed a lot MORE than he would have if semi-autos were banned, let alone making other kinds of guns harder to get.
I can think of a number of things around my home that I could use as a murder weapon if I snapped this afternoon. I can’t think of a single thing I own or have easy access to which would make it easy to kill dozens of people. Maybe with enough time and effort I could put together some kind of plan, but certainly nothing ready-made. Even driving my car though a farmer’s market would probably net, what? Ten fatalities?
“These guns are just devices like any other” is nonsense.
“You will never be completely free from risk if you are free.” - Edward Snowden
No one is asking to be completely free of risk. Or even completely free from risk of being shot.
We’d just like to bring that risk down to “first world” levels, thank you very much.
Isn’t it already obvious that groups like ISIS want to break down goodwill and trust between Muslims living in the west and their non-Muslim neighbours? This isn’t even the first time they’ve tried actions like this in the past week, let alone the last year. Trump and ISIS are basically feeding off each other.
Jesus.
I’m sure he’s a HUUUGE fan of readily available guns. Probably an NRA member too. shaking my damn head
a) Semi-automatic weapons are commonly considered assault weapons.
b) With 50 dead, 53 injured, no doubt many shot more than once and many misses, this IS a case of a shooter unloading clip after clip into a crowd.
So now the media/scorekeepers have given this savagery the position of number one worse in US history. That’s maybe not so helpful because somewhere some creep is masturbating to a foldout from Bushmaster or Colt or whatever gun supplier and thinking of the challenge he’s got ton go down with the new #1 rating
I can’t help but think, “Man armed with Machete attacks club” would result in a far lover death toll; if only because hacking people up is physically exhausting. “Man armed with homemade chemical weapon attacks club” could lead to a higher death toll, I guess.
Edit for stream of consciousness (hopefully this won’t invalidate the likes I have collected before making the edit)
Thinking about it, I would agree that the tool is less important than the hand that wields it (though Guns are a tool designed to kill things, so they have an edge when abused). So it would be more effective to control the hands than the tools. Maybe a general test for Psychopathic Tendencies could be instituted (there was a programme a few years ago about the investigation of a type of brain that is predisposed to massive violent outbreaks), and those found to fit the profile would be removed from society. I don’t suppose this would work, as our current power elite are, based on their behaviour, pretty psychopathic.
I was in the military. We NEVER set rifles on “automatic”. Doesn’t work. Only asshole gun-nuts play that way.
Hearing about this tragedy in Florida this morning has left me exhausted and all of this yelling on the internet really isn’t helping anything, so I am going to make my point and take the rest of the day off from the BBS, the news, and really the interwebs as a whole.
I agree with majority of the points you make @Mister44, banning something completely never works. I actually think that guns do have a place in the United States and they are very important to our culture or at least certain parts of it. I think that banning guns completely would either have no effect on violence or possibly even increase it, it is not a “solution” that should be even considered.
But if we are going to have a discussion on the internet about guns, instead of walking in the same circle we always do let’s not talk about what won’t work, let’s talk about what will. For example, allowing the CDC to study gun violence could actually give us some idea of what would work as a solution and what wouldn’t. Can’t we all at least agree on that? Can’t we all agree that there needs to be more research so we can at least negotiate and debate the solutions instead of just arguing about the problem? I’m already tired of this day and it isn’t even 1 PM yet, so I’ll let all of you get back to arguing the same thing over and over again, just don’t forget that 50 people lost their lives this morning.
Imam speaking at Sanford, Florida mosque- "Gays must die. … Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence…We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”
Well, clearly, we just need to ban MOOSLIMS from buying guys, even if they are American citizens, right? That’ll fix it, right? Or just throw them all in gitmo? Maybe that will work? /s
[quote=“RogerStrong, post:89, topic:79594”] [quote=“bcsizemo, post:74, topic:79594”]
That’s why the media always says “assault rifle”, because most of the time people automatically jump to scene of the shooter unloading clip after clip into a crowd.
[/quote]
Semi-automatic weapons are commonly considered assault weapons.
[/quote]
The term ‘assault weapon’ is pretty useless, actually.
The differences between an assault rifle and a non-assault rifle are often negligible. For the sake of productive discussion, you’re betting off focusing on things like automation, magazine size, dispersion, availability, licensing, background checks, ammunition types, as well as the fact that the Second Amendment is, as a matter of syntax, the most poorly written provision in the U.S. constitution.
Sounds remarkably similar to the “Kill the Gays” conference @mr_raccoon mentioned above. Honestly, GOP leadership has so much in common with radical Islamic fundamentalism that sometimes I have to wonder where all this animosity is coming from.
This is definitely an entry for the band name thread.
I feel safe calling this an act of anti-gay terrorism.
I don’t see how the killer’s religion is relevant. There are many religions that espouse the same thoughts.
Indeed, loads of people hate Gay for loads of reasons. The reasons seem less important than the hatred.
As we’ve discussed before, there’s a significant difference between inanimate objects that are designed and even marketed for their ability to cause injury or death and inanimate objects that may cause injury or death through misuse or accident.
Yes, my kid can drown in a pool or slip down the stairs or overdose on a drug, but none of these actions are considered a legitimate purpose for those objects. When a gun is used to kill one or more people, nobody says the gun malfunctioned or needs a warning label or needs to be recalled for safety issues and reissued so that it can’t shoot people. When you kill people with a gun, it’s working just fine. That such a device is readily available to such a large population which statistically will have a small, but painfully effective portion of people who go out and kill scores of other people is morally repugnant.
I am not sure why the CDC would be the go to arm of government for this. Violence isn’t a disease. I could see them studying accidental deaths, as they do that with other things as well. Personally I would think the FBI or Justice Department, people dealing with crime stats all the time, would be the best ones to glean how to lower violence.
But anyway - NOTHING is stopping the CDC from studying gun violence. There was a law passed in the 90s to prevent them from pushing an agenda, but nothing stopping them from doing studies. Nothing stopping the FBI or any other entity in this massive government we have from doing studies. Nothing from any private 3rd party folks from doing studies.
But the dirty secret is - no one really knows. Remember the late 80s and early 90s and the increasing crime problem? The birth of Grimdark in pop culture to echo it? That went down significantly and no one is really sure why.
One would think that probably the most aggressive gun control law since the law of 68 was the mandatory federal background check would show a marked dip in gun crimes, and yet there is none. Just an eventually decrease with the rest of violent crime. Probably because according to a few older studies, 80% of guns criminals get are not through the means that law abiding person would go through.
Furthermore, these mass shooting types will be even more difficult to stop because what ever legal checks you put in place, if they have never been in trouble before, why would you be rejected?
All these “civilized” 1st world nations that have been brought up 1) didn’t have the murder rate any where near what we had and 2) their murder rates are down, but showing the same gradual decrease as well.
I know he isn’t a HUUUGE fan of unchecked government authority. So maybe he is.
Really, as much as some of you complain about the over reach of government, their racist and lop sided enforcement of laws, the systematic abuse from the people in power from the top level politicians to the low level cops, and the importance placed on privacy and freedom of expression, I am continually surprised that many feel this is something the gov. should “crack down on”.
Hey - if Trump were president, who do you all think he would get tougher on first for gun control? Hmmm?
In before: “They’re not clips, they’re magazines. ::huff::”
FWIW, whoever sends out “Executive Notifications” for the LAPD also uses the term “assault weapons” (as distinct from “long rifle”). Source: midway down this article about the guy arrested today in Santa Monica for wanting to go the LA Gay Pride parade, armed with guns, ammo, and tannerite.
Our long national nightmare continues…
